Archive April 30, 2025

According to separate reports, Harvard University students and staff have experienced anti-Semitism and Islamophobia as a result of the deeply polarized environment at one of the nation’s top universities.

Following the formation of separate task forces to combat anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiments last year amid campus protests over Israel’s war on Gaza, reports were released on Tuesday.

Additionally, Trump claims that Harvard’s decision to freeze more than $2 billion in funding for the university was prompted by widespread anti-Semitism on campus. The president’s administration also is at odds with Trump.

According to Harvard President Alan Garber, members of the Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist communities reported hiding “overt markers of their identities to avoid confrontation,” while Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian community members described feeling “judged, misrepresented, and silenced.”

According to Garber, “particularly when given the anonymity and distance that social media offers,” the reported willingness of some students to treat one another with disdain rather than sympathy, and to be critical and ostracized.

Some students reported that their peers were pushing them away from campus life because of who they are or what they believe, thereby eroding our sense of community.

In its report, the task force on preventing anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli bias claimed bias had been “fomented, practiced, and tolerated” at Harvard and more broadly in academia.

According to the task force, 39 percent of Jewish students said they felt at home at the university, while 26 percent of them said they felt unsafe online.

According to the task force, nearly 60% of Jewish students said they had “discrimination, stereotyping, or negative bias” because of their opinions, and only 25% of them believed there was no “academic or professional penalty” for expressing their opinions.

The task force quoted an unnamed Israeli Arab student who claimed, “get used to social discrimination” from their first day on campus, one of the other instances of bias in the report.

“People refusing to speak with you.” not even attempting to be nice. Some people act nice and end the conversation when they learn that they are Israeli, and then never speak to [me] again,” the student was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

Similar to the anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian biases that the task force identified on campus, describing a “deep-seated sense of fear” among students and a “uncertainty, abandonment, threat, and isolation” state.

According to the task force, “Muslim women who wear the hijab and pro-Palestinian students who wear keffiyehs spoke about being subjected to verbal harassment, being called “terrorists,” and even being spat upon.”

The topic of doxxing was “particularly highlighted as a significant concern that affects both current career prospects and physical safety,” it continued, referring to the practice of sharing a person’s personal or identifiable information online.

Nearly half of the Muslim students and staff surveyed felt physically unsafe on campus, and 92 percent of them felt they would face professional or academic sanctions for speaking out about their political views.

An unnamed student was quoted as saying, “As Muslims students we have been living in constant fear.”

I can’t help but think Harvard would have done more to stop it if there had been antisemitic trucks flying over campus and planes flying over with antisemitic slogans. “There have been trucks driving around campus for months, displaying the faces of Muslim students.

Both task forces put forth a number of suggestions for addressing bias on campus, including expanding access to legal services to combat doxxing and placing a premium on students who support open inquiry.

According to Garber, the university will make additional efforts to make sure it is a place where “ideas are welcomed, entertained, and contested in the spirit of seeking truth” and “mutual respect is the norm.”

Migrants and asylum seekers who have crossed into a newly established military zone along the nation’s border with Mexico have their first criminal prosecutions in the US.

According to court filings made on Monday and reviewed by US media the day after, approximately 28 people have been accused of breaking security laws for entering the military zone.

Although a misdemeanor, that charge could result in even worse penalties. According to the US Code, breaking security laws can result in fines of up to $100, 000 for individuals or a year in prison, or both.

The consequences of unlawful entry into the US are typically less severe. Critics, however, warn of the growing militarisation of the southern border region that includes Mexico as President Donald Trump’s administration intensifies its immigration crackdown.

The “New Mexico National Defense Area” was established on April 18 to facilitate the new charges.

Fort Huachuca, an Army installation that was previously owned by the Department of the Interior, was ordered by the Department of Defense to include 109, 651 acres (44, 400 hectares) of federal land.

A border land border area near Mexico becomes a US military zone as a result of the transfer’s three-year effective period. Trespassing is a serious offense punishable by serious consequences. This military area notably overlaps with the routes that illegal immigrants and asylum seekers use to enter the US without proper paperwork.

Despite US and international law, which protects the right to flee persecution, successive presidential administrations have attempted to impose a cap on asylum seekers entering the country outside of authorized ports of entry.

One of the deterrents has been the threat of more severe penalties.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth visited the recently established military zone last week and praised the strip as a new front against an “invasion” of migrants and asylum seekers.

“This is a piece of government property.” Federal property is present in the National Defense Area, which was formerly known as the Fort Huachuca annex zone. Hegseth said any illegal entry into that area would mean entering a military base, which is a federally protected area.

You could be held in custody. You will be held in custody. Border patrol and US troops working together will interdict you.

An estimated 11, 900 soldiers have been stationed at the border as a result of the Trump administration’s increase in troops since January.

Hegseth revealed during his visit that he intends to establish additional military berths along the US border to protect against illegal immigration. He emphasized the dangers of lengthy prison sentences and complex criminal prosecutions.

“You will be monitored if you are a crossing without permission.” US soldiers will be in custody with you. He predicted that you would be temporarily detained and turned over to Customs and Border Patrol.

The government’s property is destroyed if you have jumped over or cut through a fence. Like you would any other military base, you are evading law enforcement if you have attempted to evade. When you add up the charges against you for misdemeanors and felonies, you could face a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

The first group to pass through the military zone, according to him, is “can’t wait to prosecute” New Mexico’s attorney general.

The new tactic is opposed by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, which claim military deployments to address civil offenses pose a risk to human rights.

The expansion of military detention options in the “New Mexico National Defence Area” or “border buffer zone” is a dangerous omission from the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians, according to senior staff attorney Rebecca Sheff of the organization.

Beyond the government’s efforts to limit irregular immigration, Sheff added, there might be unintended effects.